Total Biscuit's legacy: GamerGate, etc.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Jazzem wrote:To be fair, I have no issue with youtube being a valid career.

If someone's got the talent and is prepared to work hard at it, I say good for them. It's interesting to see that when I look at reviews on YT for a particular game (especially an older game), I can clearly see that the ratio between much-viewed and barely-viewed is gigantic. Sometimes its quite sad - I've watched very well-made, lengthy video reviews which have barely made it to 50 views. I give them a like.

Even if they have no talent and their videos are awful, fair play to them if they can make money from it.

I am way too old to be watching YouTube stars but I realise they are not aimed at me.

I can see though that it’s annoying if a well made video only gets 50 views and some shrieking little gooseberry fool gets millions.

Problems arise when those firmly in the untalented camp start to aggressively target minors with merchandise. Like this Jake Paul video with 13 000 000 views entitled: All I Want for Christmas is Some Jake Paul Merch:



Picking a point on the timeline at random (0:20) and it's Paul 'rapping' "Buy that merch" over and over. I mean, points to the guy for his straight up Del Boy hawking, but gooseberry fool like this is firmly on the 'reprehensible' side of the average person's moral spectrum.

I don’t really see that as any different to any other advert that uses music.

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Jazzem wrote:To be fair, I have no issue with youtube being a valid career.

If someone's got the talent and is prepared to work hard at it, I say good for them. It's interesting to see that when I look at reviews on YT for a particular game (especially an older game), I can clearly see that the ratio between much-viewed and barely-viewed is gigantic. Sometimes its quite sad - I've watched very well-made, lengthy video reviews which have barely made it to 50 views. I give them a like.

Even if they have no talent and their videos are awful, fair play to them if they can make money from it.

I am way too old to be watching YouTube stars but I realise they are not aimed at me.

I can see though that it’s annoying if a well made video only gets 50 views and some shrieking little gooseberry fool gets millions.

Problems arise when those firmly in the untalented camp start to aggressively target minors with merchandise. Like this Jake Paul video with 13 000 000 views entitled: All I Want for Christmas is Some Jake Paul Merch:



Picking a point on the timeline at random (0:20) and it's Paul 'rapping' "Buy that merch" over and over. I mean, points to the guy for his straight up Del Boy hawking, but gooseberry fool like this is firmly on the 'reprehensible' side of the average person's moral spectrum.

I don’t really see that as any different to any other advert that uses music.

...ok.

I'm 0 for 2 on support for moral outrages with you guys today.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Jazzem wrote:To be fair, I have no issue with youtube being a valid career.

If someone's got the talent and is prepared to work hard at it, I say good for them. It's interesting to see that when I look at reviews on YT for a particular game (especially an older game), I can clearly see that the ratio between much-viewed and barely-viewed is gigantic. Sometimes its quite sad - I've watched very well-made, lengthy video reviews which have barely made it to 50 views. I give them a like.

Even if they have no talent and their videos are awful, fair play to them if they can make money from it.

I am way too old to be watching YouTube stars but I realise they are not aimed at me.

I can see though that it’s annoying if a well made video only gets 50 views and some shrieking little gooseberry fool gets millions.

Problems arise when those firmly in the untalented camp start to aggressively target minors with merchandise. Like this Jake Paul video with 13 000 000 views entitled: All I Want for Christmas is Some Jake Paul Merch:



Picking a point on the timeline at random (0:20) and it's Paul 'rapping' "Buy that merch" over and over. I mean, points to the guy for his straight up Del Boy hawking, but gooseberry fool like this is firmly on the 'reprehensible' side of the average person's moral spectrum.

I don’t really see that as any different to any other advert that uses music.

...ok

Well it’s not is it?

Pick any advert on TV (or online) that uses music to sell goods. Why is it different because a YouTube guy is doing it?

You can argue that aiming adverts at kids is wrong, I’d probably agree, but it’s not suddenly evil just because it’s a solo person doing it on YouTube, rather than an international corporation.

Tafdolphin wrote:I'm 0 for 2 on support for moral outrages with you guys today.

I'm with you on both but I think you've got to understand that a solid 95% of people are just going to think "oh well it's just a YouTube video".

Moggy wrote:Pick any advert on TV (or online) that uses music to sell goods. Why is it different because a YouTube guy is doing it?

You can argue that aiming adverts at kids is wrong, I’d probably agree, but it’s not suddenly evil just because it’s a solo person doing it on YouTube, rather than an international corporation.

Aren't adverts (particularly around children) heavily regulated though?

There was a whole faff recently about sponsored/bought content and/or product placement.

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:Pick any advert on TV (or online) that uses music to sell goods. Why is it different because a YouTube guy is doing it?

You can argue that aiming adverts at kids is wrong, I’d probably agree, but it’s not suddenly evil just because it’s a solo person doing it on YouTube, rather than an international corporation.

Aren't adverts (particularly around children) heavily regulated though?

There was a whole faff recently about sponsored/bought content and/or product placement.

I think junk food adverts are, toy adverts are all over kids TV though.

Forget if you like that YouTube guy or not, what’s the difference between him singing “buy my merch!” and Smyths having a kid singing about all the toys kids can buy at their stores?

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:Pick any advert on TV (or online) that uses music to sell goods. Why is it different because a YouTube guy is doing it?

You can argue that aiming adverts at kids is wrong, I’d probably agree, but it’s not suddenly evil just because it’s a solo person doing it on YouTube, rather than an international corporation.

Aren't adverts (particularly around children) heavily regulated though?

There was a whole faff recently about sponsored/bought content and/or product placement.

I think junk food adverts are, toy adverts are all over kids TV though.

Forget if you like that YouTube guy or not, what’s the difference between him singing “buy my merch!” and Smyths having a kid singing about all the toys kids can buy at their stores?

(I know you've Youtubed that)

TV's also a bit different - there's not a "Buy Here" button right next to the ads.
Online stuff can be much easier to convert advert to purchase.

Also - the obvious answer here by the way is that both the international corporation and the youtuber can be evil/at fault.

"But EvilCorp did it too!" is not a great defense

(Edit - It's also a bit more predatory IMO. "Hey kids. You think I'm great right? We're chums? Buy my stuff and help me out?" It's in the title "Youtube Personality".

It's this (which I think was satire at the time ) but in a modern internet setting




It's preying on kids feeling a connection (something Youtube etc does much better than TV). Smyths is "Come here and buy the stuff you like!" It's not Smyth's products they're selling or getting kids to buy from a "friend")

I acknowledged in my previous post to Taf that I don’t agree with targeting adverts at children.

So I am not saying “evilcorp did it!” as a defence, I’m saying I do not see much of a difference between a YouTube star selling stuff and a big corporation selling stuff.

You have a good point with the “buy here” button though, that does make it different to TV ads.

Moggy wrote:So I am not saying “evilcorp did it!” as a defence, I’m saying I do not see much of a difference between a YouTube star selling stuff and a big corporation selling stuff.

Sorry didn't mean to suggest you did that - it was more a general comment.

I do think you're underestimating the effect of having a "personality" push something though compared to a more generic ad.
Particularly a personality who's entire brand/product is (basically) their personality.

It's like at the end of all the videos/trailers you get the actor (Peter Capaldi for Doctor Who is the one that springs to mind) awkwardly saying "Subscribe to our channel to see more" rather than some rando or just text.

I suppose it's a personal thing - but it just feels more predatory/insidious.

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:So I am not saying “evilcorp did it!” as a defence, I’m saying I do not see much of a difference between a YouTube star selling stuff and a big corporation selling stuff.

Sorry didn't mean to suggest you did that - it was more a general comment.

I do think you're underestimating the effect of having a "personality" push something though compared to a more generic ad.
Particularly a personality who's entire brand/product is (basically) their personality.

It's like at the end of all the videos/trailers you get the actor (Peter Capaldi for Doctor Who is the one that springs to mind) awkwardly saying "Subscribe to our channel to see more" rather than some rando or just text.

I suppose it's a personal thing - but it just feels more predatory/insidious.

It probably is more predatory, I don’t watch those sorts of videos on YouTube so I’m not all that experienced with them. The one that Taf posted was pretty bad, but it didn’t strike me as a great deal worse than what I see on kids TV.

Anyway I think we’re quite off topic now, it’s probably best to stop here and let people chat about the merits and faults of dead cancer sufferers...

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:So I am not saying “evilcorp did it!” as a defence, I’m saying I do not see much of a difference between a YouTube star selling stuff and a big corporation selling stuff.

Sorry didn't mean to suggest you did that - it was more a general comment.

I do think you're underestimating the effect of having a "personality" push something though compared to a more generic ad.
Particularly a personality who's entire brand/product is (basically) their personality.

It's like at the end of all the videos/trailers you get the actor (Peter Capaldi for Doctor Who is the one that springs to mind) awkwardly saying "Subscribe to our channel to see more" rather than some rando or just text.

I suppose it's a personal thing - but it just feels more predatory/insidious.

It probably is more predatory, I don’t watch those sorts of videos on YouTube so I’m not all that experienced with them. The one that Taf posted was pretty bad, but it didn’t strike me as a great deal worse than what I see on kids TV.

Anyway I think we’re quite off topic now, it’s probably best to stop here and let people chat about the merits and faults of dead cancer sufferers...

You'd watch more Kids TV that I do - so maybe my memory is wrong/outdated.

30 seconds from here is the kind of stuff I meant above btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEQuRWFKj0

That's actually not a bad version. In some of them he looks like he's delivering it at gunpoint.

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Moggy wrote:So I am not saying “evilcorp did it!” as a defence, I’m saying I do not see much of a difference between a YouTube star selling stuff and a big corporation selling stuff.

Sorry didn't mean to suggest you did that - it was more a general comment.

I do think you're underestimating the effect of having a "personality" push something though compared to a more generic ad.
Particularly a personality who's entire brand/product is (basically) their personality.

It's like at the end of all the videos/trailers you get the actor (Peter Capaldi for Doctor Who is the one that springs to mind) awkwardly saying "Subscribe to our channel to see more" rather than some rando or just text.

I suppose it's a personal thing - but it just feels more predatory/insidious.

It probably is more predatory, I don’t watch those sorts of videos on YouTube so I’m not all that experienced with them. The one that Taf posted was pretty bad, but it didn’t strike me as a great deal worse than what I see on kids TV.

Anyway I think we’re quite off topic now, it’s probably best to stop here and let people chat about the merits and faults of dead cancer sufferers...

You'd watch more Kids TV that I do - so maybe my memory is wrong/outdated.

30 seconds from here is the kind of stuff I meant above btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEQuRWFKj0

That's actually not a bad version. In some of them he looks like he's delivering it at gunpoint.

This sort of advert is what I’m talking about. “JUST LOOK HOW HAPPY YOU’LL BE WITH SOME BURGERS!!! GET YOUR PARENTS TO TAKE YOU NOW!”



To me, having a YouTube personality scream “buy my merch” isn’t much worse than McDonald’s infecting kids (or their parents!) minds with just how happy they could be if they’d just eat some burgers.

Thanks for posting that Moggy, now I've gone and bought 5,00 calories of McDonalds

Moggy wrote:Forget if you like that YouTube guy or not, what’s the difference between him singing “buy my merch!” and Smyths having a kid singing about all the toys kids can buy at their stores?

I think there are a few points to be made here.

1. All advertising aimed at children is on some level gross. I think advertisements aimed at children are more evil than those aimed directly at parents.
2. There's a difference in context between advertising presented as an advertisement and advertising masquerading as content. Although as intelligent adults we can recognise that music video as an advertisement, it lacks the semantic cues & separation of one. It's presented as a genuine "music video" and even has an iTunes page where fans can buy the single. I think this kind of marketing is more evil.
3. At the risk of sounding out-of-touch I think there's a genuine difference between what a toy store is trying to achieve, and what YouTube Dickhead Jake Paul is trying to achieve. Jake Paul is selling a personal relationship with his fans. His content is entirely about him as a "personality". At the time he was selling "textjakepaul.com", a way to privately communicate with him via text message. As a parent you are probably OK with toy stores, but I think you may feel there is something inherently creepy and exploitative about the nature of his relationship with his viewers. Advertisements predicated on an emotional relationship that the viewer has with the advertiser are more evil.
4. On some level I think we expect megacorporations to act cynically, and the context of them being a megacorporation makes us less impacted by that cynicism. Jake Paul is a children's entertainer and personality, and we have an expectation - no matter how frequently we are disappointed... - that individuals in that position should be good role models. But Jake Paul isn't a good role model. Jake Paul is a vacuous, manipulative, cynical dickhead, completely bereft of any talent whatsoever. I think that makes his relationship with his child fans and therefore any business that stems from that relationship more evil.
5. As Hexx mentioned, it's much easier to be manipulated into buying things on the Internet, particularly when you're young. At least when a kid goes to a toy shop they have to get in a car with their parents then take their parents around the shop then ask their parents "can we get that?", which introduces oversight and fail-safes into the process. Of course, this point applies to many Internet advertisements, but I think advertisements closely linked to the payment method are more evil.
6. I watched the whole video for you and looked at his shop, and I think a few of my brain cells committed suicide in protest, so I hope you're grateful for that. I think the most problematic components are the following: i. the superliminal repetition of the phrase "buy that merch", which I think has been carefully chosen as a psychological strategy; ii. the "$100 for free shipping" line, in a music video, which is just hilariously gross; iii. the presence of a very small boy, which lets us know exactly who Jake Paul knows his audience is; iv. the "ask your mum" line, which makes explicit the axiom of all children's advertising (that kids will beg their parents) with an actual instruction, which I think makes things worse; v. the fact that much of his merch pushes the "Jake Paul movements" of "J Paulers" with the tagline "You can't beat us... Join us!", which again makes explicit another reality of children's marketing, that kids will have to buy certain things to fit into certain groups, again with actual instructions to that effect. I don't think any of those items are individually unique to any marketing campaign, but I think they all work to make an instance of advertising more evil.
7. YouTube video content is not regulated in the same way that TV advertisements or even YouTube advertisements are. This means there's nowhere we can complain about tasteless adverts. Deliberately conducting your marketing in this way makes the affair - yep! - more evil than it would have been otherwise.

I am sure there are lots of other adverts (and YouTube personalities, and corporations...) out there which are also very evil. I don't think Jake Paul is some unique Hitler figure of online marketing. But I don't think his content is common-or-garden marketing compared to adverts which don't do the above.

Of course, it took 7 lengthy list entries to even begin to (fingers crossed) convince you that the video is inappropriate, and you're an intelligent guy who is used to thinking about the world critically. The "it's just a dickhead on YouTube, why waste time overthinking it?" factor is really strong. But it's worth taking a second to peer through that veil because I think it reveals a lot about how information and ideas have been propagating on the Internet in the 2010s. It doesn't stop with the Paul brothers, who are narcissists that train children to send them money. There are machine learning algorithms automatically creating disturbing YouTube Kids content aimed at literal babies to skim ad money from the platform. There are racists who use YouTube to radicalise young people. There are Russians who signal boost alt-right content via social media platforms in an active attempt to subvert our democracy. And to keep things on-topic there's the content of people like TotalBiscuit and Boogie, which uses platforms built on successful hobbyist interest content to go on to subtly support political views most of us would disagree with.

It's probably not the most important thing happening in the world right now, but it's interesting and significant, and it'll be studied by future historians, so at least we can be kind of ahead of the curve by taking notice of it now.

strawberry float me, has Gecko taken over Karl’s account?

Moggy wrote:strawberry float me, has Gecko taken over Karl’s account?

That took me half an hour to type out, I will literally ban you if you don't read it.

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:strawberry float me, has Gecko taken over Karl’s account?

That took me half an hour to type out, I will literally ban you if you don't read it.

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:strawberry float me, has Gecko taken over Karl’s account?

That took me half an hour to type out, I will literally ban you if you don't read it.

OK. The tl;dr is that I think that the self-promotion of YouTube Dickhead Jake Paul is particularly bad compared to many (probably not all, but certainly lots of) other forms of marketing, for a variety of complex reasons. Also, the success of YouTube Dickhead Jake Paul gives us some insight into the success of other negative social movements (like the alt-right), and into how people abuse YouTube as a platform in general.

You should go back and read it at some point if you care about any of that.

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:strawberry float me, has Gecko taken over Karl’s account?

That took me half an hour to type out, I will literally ban you if you don't read it.

OK. The tl;dr is that I think that the self-promotion of YouTube Dickhead Jake Paul is particularly bad compared to many (probably not all, but certainly lots of) other forms of marketing, for a variety of complex reasons. Also, the success of YouTube Dickhead Jake Paul gives us some insight into the success of other negative social movements (like the alt-right), and into how people abuse YouTube as a platform in general.

You should go back and read it at some point if you care about any of that.

I did read it.

My original point was just that singing “buy my merch” doesn’t strike me as any worse than McDonald’s “buy our food”.

I don’t know much about YouTube stars and all the guff they get up to though, so I’ll defer to your (and Hexx/Taf’s) superior knowledge of how insidious they are.

I guess this is something I’ll have to look into in the next few years as my son gets older and starts watching this gooseberry fool.

Moggy wrote:My original point was just that singing “buy my merch” doesn’t strike me as any worse than McDonald’s “buy our food”.

Sure, and in complete isolation the two concepts ("buy my t-shirt" vs. "buy our food") aren't different. I just wanted to give some context about why it actually might be (IMO is) worse when you look at the advert holistically in terms of its rhetoric, aims, and context.

Moggy wrote:I don’t know much about YouTube stars and all the guff they get up to though, so I’ll defer to your (and Hexx/Taf’s) superior knowledge of how insidious they are.

I guess this is something I’ll have to look into in the next few years as my son gets older and starts watching this gooseberry fool.

You should read about it as soon as your lad has access to any kind of Internet device, preferably sooner. All parents need to read this article about how machine learning algorithms are being used to monetise the abuse of children on the YouTube Kids app.